Friday, June 29, 2007

While we are on the topic of gun ownership and personal protection, I wanted to share this storyabout a 71-year-old South Florida man who many are calling a hero. John Lovell is a former Marine and pilot who was a member of the helicopter detail for Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. At about 11:15 pm this past Wednesday Lovell had just finished his meal at a Subway sandwich shop when two armed men rushed in and demanded cash from the lone employee behind the counter. The gunmen then tried to rob Lovell and force him into the store’s restroom. Believing his life was in danger, Lovell pulled his .45 caliber handgun from his back and fired seven rounds, hitting Donicio Arrindell and killing him The second gunman, Fredrick Gadson, was shot once and fled the scene, but was soon found nearby by police dogs and arrested.

Under Florida law, individuals have the right of "self-defense without the duty to retreat" meaning that they can use deadly force to prevent death or serious injury. Police say that Lovell, who has had a concealed carry permit since 1990, will likely not face any charges. Florida law also states that anyone who commits a felony such as armed robbery resulting in a death can be charged with murder. Under the law Gadson faces several felony charges, including the murder of Arrindell. Incredibly, the friends and family of the armed robbers have made public statements wanting to know how Lovell "could shoot two people and not go to jail." I suspect these individuals would not feel the same way if the two people shot were the store employee and Lovell.

Just so that I can’t be misquoted or misunderstood or have my words taken out of context, I thought I would put in writing exactly my position on gun ownership. Then, if you disagree with me or think I am an idiot, at least you will be basing your conclusions on what I really believe and not some distorted version of my opinion.

1) American citizens should have the right to protect themselves from criminals. It would be a lovely world if we did not have to worry about being harmed by others. While there are some people who feel their communities are extremely safe and have no desire to own a gun, many other citizens feel the need to protect themselves and their family members. Just as no pioneer would have lived on the plains or in the forests of America without a gun and no one would walk without a rifle through the Serengeti in Africa unless he didn’t mind a lion making dinner of him, some citizens feel they are simply sitting ducks if they are not able to defend themselves.

2) Our country is rife with criminals with guns. Washington DC had the strictest gun laws in the country until recently (nobody living in the District was allowed to own a gun unless he was a police officer) and also had the highest number of guns per capita (mostly owned by criminals). If criminals have guns, it makes no sense to prevent honest citizens from purchasing them.

3) All citizens who have clean criminal records and do not have a mental history should be permitted to purchase a firearm.

4) All citizens who purchase a firearm should be required to register said firearm and pass a gun safety exam. For all those who think that no citizen should have to let the government know he owns a firearm needs to grow a brain and realize that no tiny pocket of armed citizens is going to have any hope against the military might of the United States Armed Forces. It may have worked in the 1800s but those days are long gone. Sorry.

5) All citizens who purchase firearms ought to sign a legal contract (or we need a law to be passed) that the owner of the weapon accepts all responsibility for the proper discharge of that weapon and that the weapon will only be used in a legal manner. This means if a gun lying on a table, stuck in a drawer hidden under the mattress or left about in an unlocked car is used in a crime (like a school massacre) or discharged by another accidentally causing bodily harm or death, the owner will be charged with aiding and abetting the crime or contributing to manslaughter. By signing this form, the owner acknowledges that he is responsible for the firearm at all times meaning the gun is either in a lock box or on his person. Guns stolen from locked containers or vehicles should be reported immediately to the police. The owner is not responsible for the misuse of a weapon no longer in his possession due to theft.

6). Concealed carry should be permitted in all fifty states with federal permits so that a citizen does not run into a legal problem every time his car crosses into another jurisdiction. Concealed carry is better than open carry in that it does not antagonize others or cause fear for those citizens uncomfortable around guns. Furthermore, it is good for criminals not to know which citizens are carrying thereby making the criminal unwilling to take the risk of getting shot by the unexpectedly armed citizen.

6) Gun child safety locks are idiotic. The gun shouldn’t be accessible to the child and the adult needs a gun that works instantly. Since no one can be sure the owner is using the safety lock after the gun is purchased, this feel-good law is a joke.

7) “No Guns Permitted” signs are stupid (except to prevent companies from getting sued in this litigious country). Criminals are happy that no one entering the building will be armed except them.

8) Because of disparity of force, a gun may be the only protection for a female fighting a male even if he has no weapon, or for a male fighting more than one male (or a larger male) even if he has no weapon.

9) Calling 911 is no substitute for a firearm when seconds count.

10) The anti-gun people need to recognize the citizens’ right to protect themselves. The pro-gun people need to recognize the citizen’s responsibility to monitor gun sales and gun security. There should be no objection to providing both citizen safety and gun safety. If we could all get on the same page, then we could finally focus on the major contributor to firearm deaths: criminals.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Wasn’t it just a few months ago that I got wailed on by the left during the Virginia Tech massacre for suggesting kids should carry guns to school to protect themselves? Sometime during the many interviews I did that week I said something to the effect that if we allowed concealed carry on campuses maybe someone would have taken Cho out. I am a big fan of concealed carry because I know criminals carry concealed weapons all the time and I would like to even the field with some honest citizens carrying a few themselves so criminals don’t think no one will shoot back. I think of how many lives would be saved if only someone in the school or company could defend against mass murderers and keep these killers from mowing down a bunch of sitting ducks who desperately try to hide behind furniture to save their lives.

Now, after doing interviews on the Jessie Davis murder, those from the right are taking one statement out of context and going nuts about it. It seems they think that I believe any man who owns a gun is a danger to women. If I thought that, I guess I would be talking about my own father and my own son. They have guns for personal protection. For that matter, my daughter has guns for personal protection and I also own firearms for personal protection. I am all for gun ownership for personal protection. Clearly, I was not saying a man with a gun is a psychopath.

Nor was I saying a man who might have a collection of guns is a psychopath. I know many of these men as well. They are hunters or lovers of antiques or do a lot of target shooting. What I was talking about during the Paula Zahn Show was the combination of psychopathic behavior and an obsession with weaponry as psychopaths love weapons because it gives them a feeling of power and control. Psychopaths do indeed have a fascination with guns and knives and just because the rest of us might happen to own weapons or even have a number of them as a hobby doesn’t eliminate the fact that psychopaths may also be shopping at the gun store with us.

Women must learn to differentiate between psychologically healthy men and men who are not psychologically healthy if they want to keep from getting into a dangerous life threatening situation. No one trait will be proof that an individual is a psychopath, but add a bunch of traits together and this is a warning. A kind, honorable, honest man with a gun collection is not a psychopath or a danger to anyone but a lying, manipulative, arrogant creep who has a cache of twenty weapons is someone a woman wants to get the hell away from. A man who teaches history at the local junior high school and happens to have a collection of Asian swords is not someone a woman should be frightened of but a man who obsessively watches ninja flicks, brags about how he used to be in the CIA, can’t keep a job, calls women sluts and whores, and owns a huge collection of swords and daggers, now there is a guy a woman wants should avoid like the plague.

Anyone who watched the actual Paula Zahn Show and paid attention to the whole conversation and intent would clearly know I was not labeling gun owners psychopaths. Unfortunately, when words are taken out of context and printed on the Internet, often the meaning of those words get misunderstood. I apologize to any gun owners (who aren’t psychopaths) who thought they were the target of my statements. I respect your constitutional rights to own firearms and would never want to see those taken away. I, like you, want to be sure I can protect myself and my family. I wouldn’t want it any other way.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

For all you folks a little short on money and brains, the once almost impossible crime of bank robbery has been dumbed down for you. No longer are bank robberies the forte of masked, armed gangs of criminals who must plan a big operation and have lots of guts to take the big risk of getting shot or caught and put away for life. Now, pony-tailed young women are getting into the act without bothering to carry weapons and spending months planning the details. They aren’t even worried about doing much jail time. Why? Because these criminals know that because they are getting less than $5000 a pop from the tellers they approach and aren't pointing a gun at them, they likely won’t get all that long of a sentence if they do get caught.

So, while the rest of us have to work hard to get money and even have to show an ID when we ask for one hundred dollars of our own money, these pieces of riff-raff just saunter into the bank and ask for a thousands. No security guards or double locking doors are in place to deter them. The banks have decided to save money on personnel and security equipment because the U.S. government (read: us taxpayers) will foot the loss. Besides, those security measures are unnerving and unsightly for customers. How sad is it that the banks just give away money to criminals without even a blink. The tellers are told just to hand it over rather than make a fuss. Then the criminal justice system shrugs and hardly adds much fear to the commission of the crime for the offenders.

No wonder we are overrun with crime. If we are not willing to take a stand on right and wrong, criminals will think we don’t care if they rob us. Maybe we really don’t.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

I know a bunch of folks are going to write me some angry hate mail on this one but I am willing to take the risk. I think it is time we call a spade a spade and eliminate probation, parole, and phony rehabilitation. Let’s examine what these programs actually are:

Probation: you have committed a crime and you know what the supposed punishment is but we are not actually going to punish you; instead w will give you a warning not to do it again. If you do, maybe we will punish you the next time around. As a parent, I know full well that parents who use this method in child rearing create disrespectful brats. A legal system which uses this method of handling lawbreakers creates unrepentant criminals.

Parole: You have committed a crime and you know what the supposed punishment is but if you act all nicey-nicey in the pokey will give you a get-out-of jail-early card. Then, we will let you slither back into society and recommit crimes unless we get lucky enough to catch you this time around. Parents who let their kids out of their punishments early raise disrespectful brats. A legal system which uses this method of handling lawbreakers creates unrepentant criminals. Yes, I repeat myself.

Phony rehabilitation: Here we either allow the criminal not to be punished or be released from punishment early if he agrees to go into some psychological program. Noting the lesser of two evils, the criminal happily agrees to play a game he figures fools have put together. Parents who let their kids out of punishments by allowing them to wash the dishes or write a “sorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry” note raise disrespectful brats. A legal system which uses this method of handling lawbreakers creates unrepentant criminals.

How about treating a crime as a crime and improving one’s life as two separate issues? Anyone who commits a crime should be willing to do the time and anyone who wants to change he life should be willing to do so without the threat of doing time. We as a society should be clear that these are two different projects. Let me pose a scenario:

I tell my kid if he lies and sneaks out of the house to go to a party he will be grounded for one month. He lies and sneaks out. I find out. I can do one of four things:

1) Tell him I am disappointed and don’t do it again.2) Punish him for thee days and then tell him I am disappointed and don’t do it again.3) Punish him for a week and then tell him if he sets the table for the rest of the month he can go hang out with his friends again.4) Punish him for the month and then tell him that he could use to rebuild our trust in him again, spend time teaching him the worth of trust, and then offer him a chance to do so.

Common sense should tell us that the first three are a mockery of authority and responsibility. The same holds true for criminals. There are only two kinds of criminals: those who will always be unrepentant and those who actually are repentant. The only way to keep the unrepentant from committing crimes is to lock them up or make them fear being locked up. For the repentant ones who recognize they are screw ups and are willing to do their time, let’s give them good programs which they can voluntarily sign up for after they get out. However, since we citizens and judges will never be absolutely sure which group is which until after the fact, all those convicted should do the maximum time we feel as a society they should serve and then offer real opportunities to those who want help upon release. We need to make life imprisonment a reality for those who commit heinous crimes (rape, murder, child molestation, etc.) as these creeps are psychopaths who don’t know the meaning of repentance and reasonable sentences for those criminals who might learn from their time in the pen. The criminal justice system needs to get out of the business of psychoanalyzing and rolling the dice on recidivism. Only then might we see a drop in crime and an increase in public safety.

Saturday, June 16, 2007

The scariest thing about the new Kevin Costner film isn’t that Demi Moore looks like a wax mannequin, or that there are more plots in this movie than can be found in a veteran’s cemetery, or that a number of well known actors are so desperate for work that they agreed to be in this ridiculous piece of crap. What is really frightening is that I, a criminal profiler, apparently had no clue that serial killers could be such totally wonderful human beings (minus the killing stuff). It seems that Mr. Brooks doesn’t have a psychopathic bone in his body, just a little glitch in his brain chemistry that suddenly makes him need to do a thrill kill, a glitch of biology that he has sadly passed down to his daughter who also interrupts who her fine behavior with a violent hatchet slaying.

Mr. Brooks, as far as I can see, is able to work hard and achieve long term goals, marry and be faithful to an intelligent woman, raise and adore his daughter and be willing to do anything for her (yeah, like kill another person in her college town while she is home to get the police off her trail), enjoy a hobby with a high level of expertise, show depth of emotion, be forthright and honest (except about the killing), and truly feel remorse about being a killer (but oddly never about the victims – wait, that might be an odd bit of psychopathy).

Oh, Mr. Script-hack, please call me next time you write a serial killer movie for a bit of consulting! Serial homicide isn’t in the genes; you don’t inherit it. Psychopaths become that way through early childhood problems coupled with a personality type. And they don’t grow up to be fine members of society without a trace of creepiness. All the serial killers I have met or studied show every psychopathic trait without exception. They are all pathological liars, manipulators, have flat affect and have shallow emotions, lack empathy, have grandiose thinking, are narcissistic, and refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, etc. Few serial killers accomplish much in their lives either, outside of racking up murders.

Actually, we can be thankful that this movie is full of hooey. If serial killers were really like Mr. Brooks, we would have zero warning signs to go on and we wouldn’t be able to trust anyone out there. While people often say after a serial killer is arrested, “He seemed like a nice man,” or “I can’t believe he would do something like this,” the serial killer has always shown psychopathic behaviors that a good many people recognized and preferred not to be around.

I think the most upsetting thing about this movie (besides the fact I tossed $8.50 to see it) is that we are actually supposed to like the serial killer. We feel sorry for Mr. Brooks and hope he feels better soon. Never mind those pesky victims that he so cold-bloodily shot. We didn’t like them nearly as much as we like him. How sad is that…..

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Someone has sent a letter to the Dutch press claiming that he knows where little Madeleine McCann is buried. Apparently this fellow had sent a similar letter last year when the police were searching for the missing Belgian sisters, Stacy and Nathalie, which arrived just on the day they were found. Is this a hoax or could this be the abductor of all three girls? Now, there was an arrest made in the case of the murdered Belgian girls, but this letter writer is said to have known where they were buried by the train tracks and so the police are taking the Madeleine letter fairly seriously.

Let’s profile this letter and see what the possibilities are. First of all, the Belgian girls were killed within hours of their abduction and if Madeleine’s body really is where this writer says it is – seven miles from the resort from which she was taken – I think we can eliminate the pedophile ring scenario (a scenario I never really bought). The Belgian girls were raped and killed quickly; there was no transporting of them anywhere and certainly no time to do any selling of them or videotaping of them being tortured and murdered. If Madeleine is found right in the vicinity of the resort, we can eliminate any fancy sex ring kidnapping little kids for profit.

Therefore, in both cases, we would have a pedophile or a pedophile duo grabbing and amusing themselves, not involving themselves in organized crime. The letter writer could, in theory, be a traveling man and have gone to Belgium, found a couple of victims, left the country and sent the letter when he was back at home in Holland. He could have been on the road again, come across another child left unattended (the Belgian girls were left to play in the street at midnight while their parents were drinking it up inside a bar), grabbed her, raped her and killed her, and then gone back home to Holland where he once again writes a letter at leisure to the newspaper he must read all the time. He would be a publicity lover and get a kick out of having the girls found and reading about the discovery over his morning coffee. Of course, there was a man convicted of the sisters’ murder but it is possible he isn’t guilty, just a dupe, and the real killer finds this annoying and wants to set the record straight.

This is one possible scenario. However, there is a problem with it. It is said that the letter writer was right on the money as to where the sisters’ bodies would be found. I beg to differ. The letter writer marked a location that turned out to be one mile away from where the girls were found. This wouldn’t be such a big deal if he was one mile off from where he claimed Madeleine would be found – six miles or seven miles on a lonely road – well, maybe he just didn’t remember exactly how far he drove, but being one mile off of the sisters’ dump site is a different story entirely.

The sisters’ bodies were found within 300 meters of the bar, not over a mile from the bar. I would think a killer well know the difference between “at the end of the block” and “more than a mile down the road.” Furthermore, a killer who leaves the kids at the end of the block probably doesn’t have a car and the one who would leave them more than a mile away would have to have a car to carry them that far.

At this point, unless Madeleine is found exactly where the letter writer claims, the letters were probably the work of an armchair detective who just guessed where he thought they might be. If you add to this toss of the dice to all the possible locations any other tipster gave and all the psychics gave, someone is likely to get lucky and get close to the right spot.

The police, of course, would be remiss not to check this out just to be sure they aren’t ignoring a serial killer’s clues. But, chances are, there are two different pedophiles at work in these crimes. Unattended children are easy targets for pedophiles and just because the MO is similar, it doesn’t mean there is just one guy committing the crimes. Yes, there is a serial killer of children out there, but whether there is one serial killer or two serial killers involved in these crimes remains to be seen.

Friday, June 8, 2007

All those who believe it was because the terrorists are jealous of us and our capitalistic society, raise your hands. Those were the reasons President Bush gave for the murders of thousands of innocent people shortly after the attack on September 11th. For God sake, put your hands down, and think! Why would those men dare to attack America, knowing full well they would incur the great and mighty wrath of our government and military in return? Remember this is not a small group of crazed extremists, but rather a large, organized, well-funded network.

I did not buy that jealousy crap for a second, and I thought, what would drive me to do such a thing? What could fill me with that much rage? The answer is to avenge and protect my loved ones, my home, and my country. I am not for one second saying the terrorists had a right to attack and kill innocent civilians, or that the perpetrators should not be hunted down, stand trial, and pay with their own lives. However, the fact remains we will never be safe until we know the truth about the complex issues behind the reasons for the attack of 9-11 and other attacks against the U.S.

Congressman Ron Paul had the courage to point out the proverbial elephant in the room, which not many are willing to face. During the GOP debate in South Carolina last month, Rep. Paul “who has long served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, explained how 50 years of American interventionism in the Middle East has helped compromise our national security…” Rudy Giuliani interrupted saying he had "never heard anything so absurd.” Dr. Paul then advised Mr. Giuliani to read the 9-11 Commission Report. Andy Bacevich wrote this about Giuliani’s remarks to Dr. Paul’s statement in his essay published in the Atlantic Monthly, “indignation is not an argument, and 'How dare you!' is not a response”. So before anyone makes a similar comment here, I have a reading assignment for you too. Only then, can there be an exchange of opposing viewpoints-if you still have one.

It happens that Dr. Paul’s explanation is also supported by well-documented facts contained in our National Security Archives. I am a big fan of our National Archives, and have spent countless hours reading documents written by our nation’s leaders and policy makers on a variety of subjects. It is here that you can read for yourself about how individuals with an unquenchable thirst for money and power have manipulated elections, economies, and the lives of people in other countries in the name of the United States of America, because it was beneficial to American business interests. For example this January 25, 2001, memo on al-Qaeda from counter terrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. Or the enlightening 1999 Desert Crossing Seminar documents. “In late April 1999, the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), led by Marine General Anthony Zinni (ret.), conducted a series of war games known as Desert Crossing in order to assess potential outcomes of an invasion of Iraq aimed at unseating Saddam Hussein.” Over seventy participants including the Dept. of State, the CIA, the Dept.of Defense, and the National Security Council took part in the event. And there is plenty more to read about 50 years of U.S. interventionism in the Middle East and South Asia document collection. When you have finished reading about the Middle East, I suggest the section on Latin American Affairs.

Those that have the courage to seek the truth are true patriots. Not only is it our right as American citizens to question the actions of our leaders and hold them accountable, it is our responsibility. It is up to us to see that our representatives conduct themselves with honor, integrity, and decency on behalf of our beloved America. We the People have our work cut out for us, and because I love my country so deeply, I will continue to question my government and its actions. It is the least I can do.

Thursday, June 7, 2007

The name Danielle Cramer doesn’t ring a bell does it? This poor fifteen-year-old girl went missing a year ago in Connecticut and was found locked in a specially designed little room underneath a staircase in the home of a business associate of her family, a business associate with a history of “questionable involvement with minors.” Now, I do television commentary on just this sort of case all the time but I couldn’t for the life of me recall ever even hearing about this child. Clearly, she got no national publicity went she went missing, unlike Natalee Holloway, little Madeleine or Ben Ownby.

It wasn’t like there wasn’t a good possibility someone had done something bad to her considering her family had creepy people hanging around in the form of possible sex offenders. Police were concerned that Danielle had met a less than pleasant fate and finally found out that this was true, although thankfully Danielle at least was found alive after a year of searching. So, why, were there no news stories?

First of all, Danielle wasn’t seen being abducted by a friend or a camera. She just vanished. There was no exciting visual to stick in people’s minds, to show over and over on the news, or for someone to excitedly relate the story again as he got his fifteen minutes of fame. She just disappeared without any fanfare.

Secondly, she had vanished before because she was had been a repeat runaway. This was undoubtedly the number one reason there was only a halfhearted effort to find out what happened to her. If the media ran a story every time a teen took off and the police started a full fledged investigation every time some kid decided to go hang somewhere else, there would be no other news and the resources of law enforcement would be heavily strained.

The third reason Danielle didn’t get much press was that her family didn’t work very hard at it. The moms of the missing Natalee and Madeleine clearly made it their life’s work to find their kids. This family either didn’t care that much or lacked the resources to put forth such an effort. I would guess both which brings me to the saddest part of this kind of story,

Some kids just don’t get a break. They are born into less than functional families. This is why Danielle ended up being the kind of kid who is a runaway. She probably had reasons to want to runaway. Either there was abuse in the family – physical, sexual, or emotional – or there was neglect. This is the perfect child to become a victim of predators. They are easy to entice, they often won’t be missed, and the family may do little to search for them. Even if the parents do make an attempt to reach out to the public and police about their missing child, they often won’t be believed or liked well enough for a strong positive response. No one may feel sorry enough for them or their missing child. Sad, but true.

Children at risk are often put at risk by their own families and if the community cannot lend a hand, these children often end up in a bad way. It doesn’t necessarily take a community to raise a child if that child has wonderful parents but it does take a community to save a child if the parents are not up to the job.

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

There is one odd side effect of AIDS awareness that few people are aware exists. Some rapists and serial killers are terrified of becoming HIV positive and so they use condoms in the commission of their crimes. They may not actually be using condoms to thwart identification by law enforcement or to prevent the linkage of crimes, but simply because they don’t want to get a disease. How about that for getting the message across about safe sex?Yes, while serial killers don’t mind taking the lives of others, most have a real aversion to losing their own. Consequently, they don’t take on victims that will fight back, they avoid death penalty states, and some wear condoms to protect themselves from contracting HIV. Of course, some attack children and those they consider possible innocents, but, if they can’t get those victims, a condom will do.

The number of serial homicide cases without semen evidence is on the rise. While the missing semen may be due to the inability of the killer to function sexually or that he has reach such a level of experience that he is careful not to leave DNA, we shouldn’t jump to that conclusion. It may just be that he is a health nut.

Monday, June 4, 2007

I went to see the new movie Knocked Up last night. The website “Rotten Tomatoes” gave it a 92% rating by the critics so one would think this movie would be pretty great and maybe have a nice message as well. Yeah, well, who the hell are these critics anymore? Don’t they know anything about great film making or even good film making? How about pleasingly entertaining with a sense of decency? Knocked Up couldn’t rate in any of these categories.

First, it is a porn film. Yes, really, how did it get an R rating? Okay, I will admit I didn’t see his private part (although we did see hers during the birth when the baby’s head crowned and this was meant to gross us out as it did the friend of the father who happened into the room at the time). We did see the two in the sex act (humping away with sound effects and such) before and during pregnancy. We also see films of women cavorting with each other and we get constant crude body part jokes. This was the good part of the film

The part though that really irked me was that making of yet another film about male losers who end up with awesome, talented women. Sideways really ticked me off for that reason and now we have Allison and Ben representing another couple less than likely to succeed. Allison is a gorgeous, talented, well-employed woman on the rise. Ben is a fat slob who has never held a job in his twenty-three years, smokes pot and does ‘shrooms, lives in a pigpen with the worst group of losers one can imagine, and has the emotional age of a thirteen-year-old (and here I insult thirteen-year-old boys). His biggest thrill is making a website which notes at what point in each film women get naked. Woo hoo!

First of all, there is nothing attractive enough about this schlep to make me think Allison should find him sexy enough for a one night stand (hey, I am over fifty and I wouldn’t want to nail him) much less hook up with him for a lifetime. Of course, by the end of the movie, we find out that he really is a diamond in the rough. He gets a real job, finds a little apartment and decorates it for the baby, and tada! Allison’s frog has turned into a prince.

Oh, please, let me try not to roll my eyes. As a profiler I know darn well people don’t change that radically. We are pretty much what we are and although we can grow up and mature to some extent, that this much of a loser is about as likely to become a great husband and daddy as a major cheater is about to stay honest to his next wife.

Sadly, the audience seemed to like the movie, an audience full of teens. What kind of message are we actually sending our young girls except to keep your standards low and maybe you will end up lucky in the long run? Too few girls even think enough of themselves these days to want to continue their education, find a good profession, and contribute to the world rather than just become some guy’s girlfriend and have him become their “baby daddy.” Yet, this stupid flick is actually supposed to be an “inspiring” film with a happy ending. Give us a break……please.

Join Our Mailing List!

Twitter

By Pat Brown

"Killing for Sport is the most valuable insight into the minds of serial killers that you will ever read. While other profilers tend to conceal the clear facts behind complex technical language and psychobabble. Pat Brown actually tells it like it is."